Ruth Marcus writes that President Obama is not as lawless as Republicans would have us believe. She correctly dismisses the non-issue of prosecutorial discretion, reasonably accepts his regulatory flexibility, and acknowledges the need for recess appointments. Ultimately, she appears to conclude that the “lawless” claim by Republicans is unfounded.

How simple it is to gloss over unreasonable searches conducted by the National Security Agency on Americans’ Internet and telephone communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, Republicans do not complain about these broad, warrantless searches because that program was begun by the previous (Republican) administration. It would be ludicrous to see them impeach the president for these lawless, unconstitutional acts when they failed to impeach George W. Bush for the same acts. Therein lies the rub.

Liberals are faced with a desire to protect the Constitution by impeaching the president for creating this surveillance program, yet it is too late to impeach Bush. Meanwhile, liberals would not see Obama impeached for his other putative transgressions. It is a conundrum too easily dismissed by Marcus. However, her conclusion that the current administration is not “lawless” strays far from reality.

Lou Bluestein, Centennial

This letter was published in the Sept. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Some people would suggest other words other than “lawless”……such as “immoral”…..”unethical”……who will spy on both the American People and our “friends” abroad……in bulk……in mass……with the same “reasoning” he is considering sending a few token bombs and missiles Syria’s way: Because he can.

Someone who is lawless, immoral, and unethical……can not fathom a reason NOT to spy on everyone he can…….or why killing a bunch of Syrians in a “token” show of force that has NO INTENTION of toppling Assad or hold HIM accountable……but that just kills, injures, and maims a lot of Syrians who may have had NOTHING to do with the chemical attacks…….is…..wrong.

We should be….wary…..when the President of the United States…….becomes…..too…..”comfortable”……when it comes to defending the taking of human lives just for the sake of “sending a message.”

#2 Comment By primafacie On August 31, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

“Republicans do not complain about these broad, warrantless searches because that program was begun by the previous (Republican) administration.”

This one did. And does.

“It would be ludicrous to see them impeach the president for these lawless, unconstitutional acts when they failed to impeach George W. Bush for the same acts.”

By that logic, “failure” to admonish any act in one instance gives subsequent similar acts tacit approval. *That* is ludicrous. If that were the case, my neighbor’s kid now has a green light to turn his music up to 11 whenever he likes because I let it slide the other day.

But as I stated above, I disapproved of domestic snooping when Bush did it, so apparently I have credentials to disapprove of Obama. Thanks for that. Sort falls under the same category of “you’re not a teacher so you can’t have an opinion on education,” a stance that’s rather prevalent when such matters are debated.

Also ludicrous.

#3 Comment By peterpi On August 31, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

Impeachment is as much a political process as anything else.
The author’s point was if the Republicans had no problems with similar spying under Bush, they’re hypocrites if they impeach Obama for the same kind of program.
But, politics, in general, is often happy with hypocrisy.

#4 Comment By primafacie On August 31, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

By the same token, Democrats can’t be OK with Obama running guns while busting Bush’s chops for running guns. But I don’t necessarily agree. Two different gun-running programs and different results.

Not all disagreements are created equal.

#5 Comment By peterpi On August 31, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

That’s because you’re partisan.
I’ve seen people on this website go out of their way to praise the Bush program, while condemning the Obama one.
In either case, guns ended up in Mexican gangs’ hands.
In the case of both Obama and Bush, Americans were/are being spied on.

#6 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:36 am

I love it when the “tolerant left” become in-tolerant to even eat their own! You’ll NEVER see a Republican do this. Bush could of lied about WMDs, claimed Saddam was acquiring nukes, was behind 9/11, and was in bed with Al Quaida, take a record national surplus and turn it into a record deficit and run the country into a near-depression. . and the Republicans wouldn’t never turn on him. (wait a minute, Bush did all this, and now they want to give him an award for “Improving the Human Condition?”) Such is the nature of left and right. Idealists and opportunists.

#7 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:37 am

“I disapproved of domestic snooping when Bush did it, so apparently I have credentials to disapprove of Obama.” . . . looking for love in all the wrong places! Fail. Kind of like saying “I’m not a racist, because one of my best friends. . “

#8 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:42 am

“Impeachment is as much a political process as anything else.”
I love it when peter, goes “rational” on us to point out the obvious to those who can’t see the equality of such patriotic idioms. Ah, yes,. . “impeachment” . . “recalls”. . “succession” . . all now part of our political dialogue. Gotta love Amerika!

#9 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:43 am

what ever’s fair, eh peter?

#10 Comment By toohip On September 1, 2013 @ 10:45 am

on a similar note, why does SoS Kerry who was my hero for standing up to Congress on Vietnam as a decorated war veteran, now sound like such a war-monger in the same vein as McCain, suggesting if Congress doesn’t vote to attack Syria, Obama should attack anyway? It is politics?

#11 Comment By primafacie On September 1, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

Sounds like you’re saying that if you vote for a president, you approve of every position he takes and every decision he makes, down to whether he takes cream in his coffee. And if you don’t denounce Carter for taking cream, to denounce Bush and his cream you’re a hypocrite.

That is, of course, ridiculous. You know me, I’m no Clinton supporter, but I was down with NAFTA and give him some degree of credit on welfare reform.